tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70977302015-03-03T06:59:00.653-05:00I/P UpdatesNews and Information for the Sophisticated Intellectual Property PractitionerUnknownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14006726787580223532noreply@blogger.comBlogger3098125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-82471128086104359222010-06-07T16:20:00.001-04:002010-06-07T16:20:53.765-04:00Marking Not Required for Notice in Process or Method Claims<SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"> <P align=left><SPAN class=725134419-07062010><FONT face=Arial>In <FONT color=#0000ff><EM>Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v.&nbsp; Reexam Beverage Can&nbsp;Co.</EM></FONT>&nbsp;(March 17, 2009) the Federal Circuit reiterated that the <SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">notice provisions of </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">§287 </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">do not apply where the patent is directed to a process or method.&nbsp; </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P></SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=725134419-07062010>[A]</SPAN> party that does not mark a patented<SPAN class=725134419-07062010> </SPAN>article is not entitled to damages for infringement<SPAN class=725134419-07062010> </SPAN>prior to actual notice. Although Rexam asserted<SPAN class=725134419-07062010> </SPAN>only the method claims of the '839 patent against<SPAN class=725134419-07062010> </SPAN>Crown, the district court dismissed Rexam's counterclaim<SPAN class=725134419-07062010> </SPAN>because the '839 patent also includes unasserted<SPAN class=725134419-07062010> </SPAN>apparatus claims. The district court erred.</FONT></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial>The law is clear that the notice provisions of </FONT></SPAN><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#000000><SPAN style="COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">§287 </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">do not apply where the patent is directed to a process or method. </SPAN><I><SPAN style="COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Bandag, Inc. v. Gerrard Tire Co., </SPAN></I><SPAN style="COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">704 F.2d 1578, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1983)</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">. In </SPAN><I><SPAN style="COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Hanson, </SPAN></I><SPAN style="COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">718 F.2d at 1082-83, </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">we held that </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">35 U.S.C. §287(a) </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">did not apply where the patentee only asserted the method claims of a patent which included both method and apparatus claims. </SPAN><I><SPAN style="COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Hanson </SPAN></I><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">is factually identical to this case, and we are therefore bound by the rule of </SPAN><I><SPAN style="COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Hanson.</SPAN></I><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT face=Arial>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">In </SPAN><FONT color=#000000><I><SPAN style="COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">American Medical Systems, Inc. v. Medical Engineering Corp., </SPAN></I><SPAN style="COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">6 F.3d 1523 (Fed.Cir.1993)</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">, we<SPAN class=725134419-07062010> </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT face=Arial>explained:<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT face=Arial>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">The purpose behind the marking statute is to encourage the patentee to give notice to the public of the patent. The reason that the marking statute does not apply to method claims is that, ordinarily, where the patent claims are directed to only a method or process there is nothing to mark. Where the patent contains both apparatus and method claims, however, to the extent that there is a tangible item to mark by which notice of the asserted method claims can be given, a party is obliged to do so if it intends to avail itself of the constructive notice provisions of </SPAN><FONT color=#000000><SPAN style="COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">section 287(a)</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT face=Arial>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#000000><I><SPAN style="COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Id. </SPAN></I><SPAN style="COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">at 1538-39. </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">As the </SPAN><I><SPAN style="COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">American Medical </SPAN></I><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">opinion goes on to explain:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT face=Arial>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">In this case, <I>both apparatus and method claims of the '765 patent were asserted </I>and there was a<SPAN class=725134419-07062010> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">physical device produced by the claimed method that was capable of being marked. Therefore, we conclude that AMS was required to mark its product pursuant to </SPAN><FONT color=#000000><SPAN style="COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">section 287(a) </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">in order to recover<SPAN class=725134419-07062010> </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT face=Arial>damages under its method claims prior to actual or constructive notice being given to MEC.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT face=Arial>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P><FONT color=#000000><I><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">Id. </SPAN></I><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">at 1539 </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">(emphasis added). In this case and </SPAN><I><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">Hanson, </SPAN></I><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">the patentee only asserted method claims despite the fact that the patent contained both method and apparatus claims. In </SPAN><I><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">American Medical, </SPAN></I><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">in contrast, "both apparatus and method claims of the '765 patent were asserted." </SPAN><I><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">American Medical, </SPAN></I><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">6 F.3d at 1523. </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">Because Rexam asserted only the method claims of the '</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">839 patent</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">, the marking requirement of </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">35 U.S.C. § 287(a) </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">does not apply<SPAN class=725134419-07062010>&nbsp;</SPAN>Consequently, we reverse the district court's grant of Crown's motion for summary judgment dismissing Rexam's counterclaim for infringement of the ' </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">839 patent</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">.</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com108tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-49403947234307177682010-03-03T15:34:00.001-05:002010-03-03T15:34:15.019-05:00Fair Use Doctrine Under U.S. Copyright Law<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=363470020-03032010><SPAN class=739232920-03032010>A</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN class=739232920-03032010>uthors rights under copyright law&nbsp;are </SPAN>subject to certain limitations<SPAN class=739232920-03032010>, including&nbsp;</SPAN>the doctrine of &#8220;fair use&#8221;&nbsp;<SPAN class=363470020-03032010>that was&nbsp;</SPAN>developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.&nbsp;<SPAN class=363470020-03032010>&nbsp;<SPAN class=739232920-03032010><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT color=#000000>&nbsp;In the U.S.,</FONT>&nbsp;</FONT><FONT color=#000000>t</FONT></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN class=363470020-03032010>he </SPAN>Fair&nbsp;<SPAN class=363470020-03032010>U</SPAN>se&nbsp;</FONT></FONT><A title=Doctrine href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>doctrine</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>&nbsp;</FONT><FONT size=2>allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders under<SPAN class=363470020-03032010>&nbsp;</SPAN>a four-factor </FONT></FONT><A title="Balancing test" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balancing_test"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>balancing test</FONT></A><SPAN class=363470020-03032010></SPAN><FONT size=2 face=Arial>&nbsp;<SPAN class=363470020-03032010>considering</SPAN>:</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2"><A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Purpose_and_character"><SPAN class=toctext><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Purpose and character</FONT></SPAN></A></DIV> <DIV class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2"><SPAN class=363470020-03032010><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit.&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2"><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2"><A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Nature_of_the_copied_work"><SPAN class=toctext><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Nature of the copied work</FONT></SPAN></A></DIV> <DIV class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2"><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=363470020-03032010>C</SPAN>ourts are more likely to find fair use where the work is factually-oriented<SPAN class=363470020-03032010>,</SPAN>&nbsp;</FONT></FONT><A title="Idea-expression divide" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea-expression_divide"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>facts and ideas are separate from copyright</FONT></A><FONT size=2 face=Arial>&#8212;only their particular expression or fixation merits such protection. </FONT></DIV> <DIV class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2"><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2"><A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Amount_and_substantiality"><SPAN class=toctext><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Amount and substantiality</FONT></SPAN></A></DIV> <DIV class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use.</FONT></DIV> <DIV class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5"><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5"><A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Effect_upon_work.27s_value"><SPAN class=toctext><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Effect upon work's value</FONT></SPAN></A></DIV> <DIV class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5"><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=363470020-03032010>C</SPAN>ourts often consider two kinds of harm to the potential market of the original work.&nbsp;&nbsp;First, courts consider whether the use in question acts as a </FONT></FONT><A title="Direct market" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_market"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>direct market</FONT></A><FONT size=2 face=Arial> substitute for the original work. Second, courts also consider whether potential market harm might exist beyond that of direct substitution, such as in the potential existence of a licensing market. </FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5"><SPAN class=363470020-03032010><SPAN class=363470020-03032010><FONT size=2 face=Arial>As </FONT><A href="http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>noted by the U.S. Copyright Office</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>,&nbsp;<SPAN class=739232920-03032010>t</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT size=2 face=Arial>he distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission<SPAN class=363470020-03032010> and&nbsp;a</SPAN>cknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. </FONT></DIV> <DIV class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5"> <P><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: &#8220;quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author&#8217;s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.&#8221; </FONT></P></SPAN></DIV>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com31tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-64815507323395794152010-02-18T15:31:00.001-05:002010-02-18T15:31:20.526-05:00USPTO Interim Procedure for Patent Term Adjustment Recalculation<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The&nbsp;<SPAN class=360391719-28012010>U.S. Patent and Trademark Office&nbsp;</SPAN>expects to complete by March 2, 2010, the software modification necessary to comply with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent decision in Wyeth v. Kappos regarding the overlapping delay provision of 35 USC 154(b)(2)(A).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In the meantime, the USPTO will be processing recalculation requests under an interim procedure that is available to a patentee whose patent issues prior to March 2, 2010, and who request it no later than 180 days after the issue date.&nbsp; This procedure is available only for alleged errors in calculation that are specifically identified in Wyeth.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A copy of the notice submitted to the Federal Register for publication and the form for patentees to use in requesting a recalculation of patent term is on the USPTO Web site at </FONT><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/pta_wyeth.pdf" target=_blank><FONT size=2 face=Arial>http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/pta_wyeth.pdf</FONT></A><FONT size=2 face=Arial>.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>An applicant is entitled, subject to certain conditions and limitations, to patent term adjustment if (1) the USPTO fails to take certain actions during the examination and issue process within specified time frames; (2) if the USPTO fails to issue a patent within three years of the actual filing date of the application; and (3) for delays due to interference, secrecy order, or successful appellate review.<SPAN class=360391719-28012010>&nbsp; </SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=360391719-28012010></SPAN></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=360391719-28012010><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><FONT color=#000000><SPAN class=703322720-18022010>T</SPAN>he guidance does not address patents that have issued more than 180 days ago, nor has the USPTO provided any indication that it will address this issue in the future.</FONT>&nbsp; </SPAN></SPAN></DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-72672828615445193402009-12-16T16:12:00.000-05:002009-12-16T16:13:02.181-05:00USPTO Rules on Special Status Petitions for Green Technology Patent Applications<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>In a </FONT><A title=http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-29207.pdf href="http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-29207.pdf" target=_blank><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Federal Register notice</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>&nbsp;<SPAN class=359033417-08122009>published and effective on December 8, 2009</SPAN>, the&nbsp;<SPAN class=359033417-08122009>U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced rules for implementing its&nbsp;previously-announced pilot program in which an applicant may petition to have an application involving&nbsp;green technologies advanced out of turn without<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>meeting all of the requirements<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>of the existing accelerated examination program<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> such as </SPAN>examination support documents.&nbsp;<FONT size=1 face=Melior><FONT size=1 face=Melior><FONT size=2>The Green Technology Pilot </FONT><FONT size=2>Program will run for twelve months </FONT><FONT size=2>from its effective date.&nbsp;</FONT><FONT size=2>The </FONT><FONT size=2>USPTO may extend the pilot program </FONT><FONT size=2>(with or without modifications) </FONT><FONT size=2>depending on the feedback from the </FONT><FONT size=2>participants and the effectiveness of the </FONT><FONT size=2>pilot program.</FONT></DIV></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2><SPAN class=359033417-08122009> <P><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=359033417-08122009>Once a petition is granted, the special status applications will be&nbsp;placed on an examiner's special docket prior to the first Office action, on the examiner's amended docket after the first Office action,&nbsp;and will also have special status in any appeal to the BPAI and&nbsp;in the patent publication process.&nbsp; However, petitions to make special under the Green Technology Pilot Program must be filed before December 8, 2010 and the&nbsp;</SPAN>USPTO will accept only the first<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>3,000 petitions<SPAN class=359033417-08122009>,</SPAN><SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>provided that the petitions meet&nbsp;<SPAN class=359033417-08122009>several </SPAN>requirements<SPAN class=359033417-08122009>, including</SPAN><SPAN class=359033417-08122009>:</SPAN></FONT></P> <UL> <LI><FONT face=Arial>The&nbsp;<SPAN class=359033417-08122009>non-fee </SPAN>petition must be&nbsp;in a nonprovisional, non-reissue application that was filed on or before the date of the notice (December 8, 2009)<SPAN class=359033417-08122009>,</SPAN> and at least one day before a first office action is mailed (which may be a restriction requirement)<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> or </SPAN>appears in the<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>Patent Application Information<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>Retrieval (PAIR) system.<SPAN class=359033417-08122009>&nbsp;</SPAN><SPAN class=359033417-08122009>C</SPAN>ontinuing<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>applications will not automatically be<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>accorded special status based on papers<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>filed with a petition in a parent<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>application. Each continuing<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>application must on its own meet all<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial>requirements for special status.</FONT> <LI><FONT face=Arial>The petition to make special must<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>be accompanied by a request for early<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>publication in compliance with 37 CFR<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>1.219 and the publication fee set forth<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>in 37 CFR 1.18(d). </FONT> <LI><FONT face=Arial>The application must be classified in one of the&nbsp;<SPAN class=359033417-08122009>may </SPAN>classes identified&nbsp;<SPAN class=359033417-08122009>Section V of&nbsp;</SPAN>the </FONT><A title=http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-29207.pdf href="http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-29207.pdf" target=_blank><FONT face=Arial>Federal Register notice</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial>&nbsp;<SPAN class=359033417-08122009>copied below.</SPAN></FONT> <LI><FONT face=Arial>The application must have no more than 3 independent claims and 20 total claims, or a preliminary amendment must be filed to reduce the number of claims at or below these thresholds<SPAN class=359033417-08122009>.&nbsp; A</SPAN>pplicants m<SPAN class=359033417-08122009>ay</SPAN> file a preliminary<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>amendment&nbsp;to cancel the excess claims and/or the multiple dependent claims at the<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>time the petition to make special is<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>filed. </FONT> <LI><FONT face=Arial>The claims must be directed to a single invention and include a statement that if the USPTO determines that the claims are directed to multiple inventions, the applicant will agree to make an election without traverse in a telephonic interview, and elect an invention that meets the eligibility requirements&nbsp; </FONT> <LI><FONT face=Arial>The claimed invention must materially enhance the quality of the environment or materially contribute to: (1) the discovery or development of renewable energy resources; (2) the more efficient utilization and conservation of energy resources; or (3) greenhouse gas emission reduction, and explain how this standard is met</FONT></LI></UL> <DIV> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial>If applicant files a petition to make<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>special under the Green Technology<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>Pilot Program that does not comply with<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>the requirements set forth in th<SPAN class=359033417-08122009>e</SPAN> notice,<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>the USPTO will notify the applicant of<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>the deficiency by issuing a notice and<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>applicant will be given only one<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>opportunity to correct the deficiency<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> within the longer of one month or thirty days.&nbsp; Otherwise, tithe application will not be eligible for the Green Technology Program.&nbsp; </SPAN>The time period for reply is <I>not<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></I></FONT><FONT size=1><FONT size=1><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>extendable under 37 CFR 1.136(a).</FONT> </FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT size=2><SPAN class=359033417-08122009><FONT size=1><FONT size=1><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><EM></EM></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=359033417-08122009><FONT size=1><FONT size=1><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><EM>For applications pertaining to environmental<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>quality</EM>, the petition to make special<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>must state that special status is sought<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>because the invention materially<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>enhances the quality of the environment<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>by contributing to the restoration or<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>maintenance of the basic life-sustaining<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>natural elements. If the application does<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>not clearly disclose that the claimed<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>invention materially enhances the<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>quality of the environment by<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>contributing to the restoration or<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>maintenance of one of the basic life sustaining<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>natural elements, the petition<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>must be accompanied by a statement<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>signed by the applicant, assignee, or an<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>attorney/agent registered to practice<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>before the USPTO, in explaining how the<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>materiality standard is met. The<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>materiality standard does not permit an<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>applicant to speculate as to how a<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>hypothetical end-user might specially<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>apply the invention in a manner that<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>could materially enhance the quality of </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>the environment. Nor does such </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>standard permit an applicant to enjoy </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>the benefit of advanced examination </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>merely because some minor aspect of </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>the claimed invention may enhance the </FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>quality of the environment. </FONT><I><FONT size=2>See </FONT></I></FONT><FONT size=1><FONT size=1><FONT size=2 face=Arial><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_708_02.htm">MPEP </A></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_708_02.htm">§ 708.02</A> (item V).</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=359033417-08122009><FONT size=1><FONT size=1><FONT size=1><FONT size=1><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=359033417-08122009><FONT size=1><FONT size=1><FONT size=1><FONT size=1><FONT size=2 face=Arial><EM>For patent applications pertaining to</EM></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT size=2><SPAN class=359033417-08122009><FONT size=1><FONT size=1><FONT size=2><EM><FONT face=Arial>: (1) The<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>discovery or development of renewable<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>energy resources; (2) the more efficient<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>utilization and conservation of energy<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>resources; or (3) the reduction of<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial>greenhouse gas emissions, </FONT></EM></FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>the term<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>''renewable energy resources'' includes hydroelectric, solar,<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>wind, renewable biomass, landfill gas,<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>ocean (including tidal, wave, current,<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>and thermal), geothermal, and<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>municipal solid waste, as well as the<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>transmission, distribution, or other<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>services directly used in providing<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>electrical energy from these sources. </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The second category would include </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>inventions relating to the reduction of </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>energy consumption in combustion </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>systems, industrial equipment, and </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>household appliances. The third </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>category listed above would include, but </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>is not limited to, inventions that </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>contribute to (1) advances in nuclear </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>power generation technology, or (2) </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>fossil fuel power generation or </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>industrial processes with greenhouse </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>gas-abatement technology (</FONT></FONT></FONT><I><FONT face=Arial>e.g., </FONT></I><FONT size=1><FONT size=1><FONT size=2 face=Arial>inventions that significantly improve </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>safety and reliability of such </FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>technologies).</FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=359033417-08122009></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=359033417-08122009><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>The petition to make special for an<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>application directed to development of<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>renewable energy or energy<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>conservation, or directed to greenhouse<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>gas emission reduction, must state the<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial>basis for the special status (</FONT><I><FONT face=Arial>i.e., </FONT></I><FONT face=Arial>whether<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial>the invention materially contributes to<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial>(1) development of renewable energy<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial>resources or energy conservation, or (2)<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial>greenhouse gas emission reduction). If<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial>the application disclosure is not clear<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial>on its face that the claimed invention<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial>materially contributes to (1)<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial>development of renewable energy or<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> <FONT face=Melior><FONT face=Melior>energy conservation, or (2) greenhouse gas emission reduction, the petition must be accompanied by a statement signed by the applicant, assignee, or an attorney/agent registered to practice before the USPTO, explaining how the materiality standard is met. The materiality standard does not permit an applicant to speculate as to how a hypothetical end-user might specially apply the invention in a manner that could materially contribute to (1) development of renewable energy or energy conservation, or (2) greenhouse gas emission reduction, nor does the standard permit an applicant to enjoy the benefit of advanced examination merely because some minor aspect of the claimed invention may be directed to (1) development of renewable energy or energy conservation, or (2) greenhouse gas emission reduction. </FONT></FONT><I><FONT face=Melior-Italic><FONT face=Melior-Italic>See </I></FONT></FONT><FONT face=Melior><FONT face=Melior><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_708_02.htm">MPEP § 708.02</A> (item VI).</DIV></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> <DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=359033417-08122009><FONT size=1><FONT size=1><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>For USPTO the press release, click </FONT><A title=http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2009/09_33.jsp href="http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2009/09_33.jsp"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>here</FONT></A><FONT size=2 face=Arial>.&nbsp; For the Federal Register notice with more details of the program and the requirements to participate, click </FONT><A title=http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-29207.pdf href="http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-29207.pdf"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>here</FONT></A><FONT size=2 face=Arial>.&nbsp; USPTO Director Kappos also provides </FONT><A title=http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/accelerating_green_innovation href="http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/accelerating_green_innovation"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>this entry </FONT></A><FONT size=2 face=Arial>on his official blog on the subject<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> with links to his</SPAN> </FONT><A title=http://uspto.gov/news/speeches/2009/2009nov07.jsp href="http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2009/2009nov07.jsp"><FONT color=#031d4e size=2 face=Arial>remarks</FONT></A><FONT size=2 face=Arial> from the press conference, as well as press accounts of the announcement in<SPAN class=359033417-08122009>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT><A title=http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/12/07/07greenwire-obama-admin-will-speed-reviews-of-green-patent-96355.html href="http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/12/07/07greenwire-obama-admin-will-speed-reviews-of-green-patent-96355.html"><FONT color=#031d4e size=2 face=Arial>NYTimes.com</FONT></A><FONT size=2 face=Arial> and </FONT><A title=http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091207-709516.html href="http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091207-709516.html"><FONT color=#031d4e size=2 face=Arial>WSJ.com</FONT></A><FONT size=2 face=Arial>.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT size=1 face=Melior><FONT size=1 face=Melior> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>The following is a list of the eligible<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>classifications:</FONT></P></FONT></FONT><B> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>A. Alternative Energy Production</FONT></P></B> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>1. Agricultural waste (USPC 44/589).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>2. Biofuel (USPC 44/605; 44/589).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>3. Chemical waste (USPC 110/235</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>259, 346).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>4. For domestic hot water systems<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>(USPC 126/634680).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>5. For passive space heating (USPC<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>52/173.3).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>6. For swimming pools (USPC 126/<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>561568).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>7. Fuel cell (USPC 429/1246).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>8. Fuel from animal waste and crop<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>residues (USPC 44/605).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>9. Gasification (USPC 48/197R, 197A).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>10. Genetically engineered organism<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>(USPC 435/252.3252.35, 254.11254.9,</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>257.2, 325408, 410431).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>11. Geothermal (USPC 60/641.2</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>641.5; 436/2533).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>12. Harnessing energy from man-made<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>waste (USPC 75/958; 431/5).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>13. Hospital waste (USPC 110/235<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>259, 346).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>14. Hydroelectric (USPC 405/7678;<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>60/495507; 415/25).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>15. Industrial waste (USPC 110/235</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>259, 346).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>16. Industrial waste anaerobic<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>digestion (USPC 210/605).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>17. Industrial wood waste (USPC 44/</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>589; 44/606).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>18. Inertial (</FONT><I><FONT size=2>e.g., </FONT></I><FONT size=2>turbine) (USPC 290/</FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>51, 54; 60/495507).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>19. Landfill gas (USPC 431/5).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>20. Municipal waste (USPC 44/552).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>21. Nuclear powerinduced nuclear<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>reactions: processes, systems, and<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>elements (USPC 376/all).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>22. Nuclear powerreaction motor<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>with electric, nuclear, or radiated energy<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>fluid heating means (USPC 60/203.1).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>23. Nuclear powerheating motive<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>fluid by nuclear energy (USPC 60/644.1)<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Photovoltaic (USPC 136/243265).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>24. Refuse-derived fuel (USPC 44/</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>552).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>25. Solar cells (USPC 438/57, 82, 84,</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>85, 86, 90, 93, 94, 96, 97).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>26. Solar energy (USPC 126/561714;<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>320/101).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>27. Solar thermal energy (USPC 126/</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>561713; 60/641.8641.15).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>28. Water level (<I>e.g., </I>wave or tide)<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>(USPC 405/7678; 60/495507).</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2 face=Arial>29. Wind (USPC 290/44, 55; 307/64</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>66, 8287; 415/2.1).</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>B. Energy Conservation</STRONG></FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>1. Alternative-power vehicle (</FONT><I><FONT size=2>e.g.,</FONT></I></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>hydrogen) (USPC 180/2.12.2, 54.1).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>2. Cathode ray tube circuits (USPC<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>315/150, 151, 199).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>3. Commuting, <I>e.g., </I>HOV, teleworking<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>(USPC 705/13).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>4. Drag reduction (USPC 105/1.11.3;<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>296/180.1180.5; 296/181.5).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>5. Electric lamp and discharge devices<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>(USPC 313/498512, 567643).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>6. Electric vehicle (USPC 180/65.1;</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>180/65.21; 320/109; 701/22; 310/1310).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>7. Emission trading, </FONT><I><FONT size=2>e.g., </FONT></I></FONT><FONT size=1 face=Melior><FONT size=1 face=Melior><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>pollution<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>credits (USPC 705/3545).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>8. Energy storage or distribution<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>(USPC 307/3841; 700/295298; 713/</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>300340).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>9. Fuel cell-powered vehicles (USPC<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>180/65.21; 180/65.31).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>10. Human-powered vehicle (USPC<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>180/205; 280/200304.5).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>11. Hybrid-powered vehicle (USPC<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>180/65.2165.29; 73/35.0135.13, 112</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>115, 116119A, 121132).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>12. Incoherent light emitter structure<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>(USPC 257/79, 82, 8890, 93, 99103).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>13. Land vehicle (USPC 105/4961<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>(electric trains); 180/65.165.8 (electric<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>cars)).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>14. Optical systems and elements<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>(USPC 359/591598).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>15. Roadway, <I>e.g., </I>recycled surface,<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>all-weather bikeways (USPC 404/32</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>46).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>16. Static structures (USPC 52/309.1</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>309.17, 404.1404.5, 424442, 783.1</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>795.1).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>17. Thermal (USPC 702/130136).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>18. Transportation (USPC 361/19, 20,<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>141, 152, 218).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>19. Watercraft drive (electric<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>powered) (USPC 440/67).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>20. Watercraft drive (human powered)<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>(USPC 440/2132).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>21. Wave-powered boat motors (USPC<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>440/9).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>22. Wind-powered boat motors (USPC<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>440/8).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>23. Wind-powered ships (USPC 114/<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>102.1115).</FONT></P><B> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>C. Environmentally Friendly Farming</FONT></P></B> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>1. Alternative irrigation technique<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>(USPC 405/3651).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>2. Animal waste disposal or recycling<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>(USPC 210/610611; 71/1130).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>3. Fertilizer alternative, <I>e.g.,<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></I></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>composting (USPC 71/830).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>4. Pollution abatement, soil<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>conservation (USPC 405/15).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>5. Water conservation (USPC 137/</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>78.278.3; 137/115.01115.28).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>6. Yield enhancement (USPC 504).</FONT></P><B> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>D. Environmental Purification,<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Protection, or Remediation</FONT></P></B> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>1. Biodegradable (USPC 383/1; 523/</FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>124128; 525/938; 526/914).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>2. Bio-hazard, Disease (permanent<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>containment of malicious virus,<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>bacteria, prion) (USPC 588/249249.5).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>3. Bio-hazard, Disease (destruction of<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>malicious virus, bacteria, prion) (USPC<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>588/299).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>4. Carbon capture or sequestration<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>(USPC 95/139140; 405/129.1129.95;<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>423/220234).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>5. Disaster (</FONT><I><FONT size=2>e.g., </FONT></I></FONT><FONT size=1 face=Melior><FONT size=1 face=Melior><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>spill, explosion,<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>containment, or cleanup) (USPC 405/</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>129.1129.95).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>6. Environmentally friendly coolants,<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>refrigerants, etc. (USPC 252/7179).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>7. Genetic contamination (USPC 422/</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>143).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>8. Hazardous or Toxic waste<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>destruction or containment (USPC 588/</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>1261).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>9. In atmosphere (USPC 95/5781,<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>149240).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>10. In water (USPC 210/600808; 405/</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>60).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>11. Landfill (USPC 405/129.95).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>12. Nuclear waste containment or<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>disposal (USPC 588/120, 400).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>13. Plants and plant breeding (USPC<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>800/260323.3).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>14. Post-consumer material (USPC<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>264/36.136.22, 911921; 521/4049.8).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>15. Recovery of excess process<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>materials or regeneration from waste<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>stream (USPC 162/29, 189191; 164/5;<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>521/4049.8; 562/513).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>16. Recycling (USPC 29/403.1403.4;<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>75/401403; 156/94; 264/37.137.33).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>17. Smokestack (USPC 110/345; 422/</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>900).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>18. Soil (USPC 405/128.1128.9,<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>129.1129.95).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>19. Toxic material cleanup (USPC<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>435/626282).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>20. Toxic material permanent<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN>containment or destruction (USPC 588/<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>all).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>21. Using microbes or enzymes (USPC<SPAN class=359033417-08122009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>435/262.5).</FONT></P></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-59876645912466786222009-10-19T10:34:00.001-04:002009-10-19T10:34:09.018-04:00USPTO Expands and "Enhances" First Action Interview Pilot Program<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN class=260391813-02102009><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/faipp_v2.htm"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Effective October 1, 2009</FONT></A><FONT size=2 face=Arial>, t</FONT></SPAN><FONT size=2 face=Arial>he United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is expanding&nbsp;<SPAN class=260391813-02102009>and "enhancing" </SPAN>the&nbsp;</FONT><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/faipp_original.htm"><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=260391813-02102009>original </SPAN>First Action Interview Pilot Program</FONT></FONT></A><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>&nbsp;<SPAN class=260391813-02102009>which ended on June 28, 2009.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV> <P dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=260391813-02102009><FONT color=#0000ff>Under the </FONT><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/faipp_enhanced.htm"><FONT color=#0000ff>Enhanced First Action Interview Pilot Program</FONT></A><FONT color=#0000ff>&nbsp;ending April 1, 2010, the examiner will conduct a prior art search and provide the applicant a pre-interview communication, which is a condensed preview of objections or rejections proposed against the claims.&nbsp; Within 30 days from the issue date of the pre-interview communication, the applicant must either choose not to have a first action interview with the examiner, or schedule the interview and file a proposed amendment or remarks (arguments).&nbsp; The response period to reply to this pre-interview communication can&nbsp;be extended by 30 days.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P> <P dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=260391813-02102009></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=260391813-02102009>Should the applicant choose not to have a first action interview, a First Action Interview office action will be promptly issued and the applicant will have one month or 30 days, whichever is longer, to reply.&nbsp; If an interview is scheduled, the applicant must be prepared to discuss issues related to the patentability of the claims.&nbsp; If agreement is not reached on all claims in regards to patentability, the applicant will be given a First Action Interview office action&nbsp;to which the applicant will be given one month&nbsp;to reply with limited extensions of time and&nbsp;this First Action Interview office action will be&nbsp;considered the first action on the merits.&nbsp; The applicant can also&nbsp;waive receipt of the First Action Interview office action during the interview with the examiner, convert the previously-submitted draft amendment to a formal amendment, and proceed directly to the second substantive examination.&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P> <P dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=260391813-02102009>Other aspects of the program include:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P> <DIV dir=ltr align=left> <UL> <LI><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=260391813-02102009>E</SPAN>xpand<SPAN class=260391813-02102009>ing the pilot&nbsp;</SPAN>across more art units in the Technology Centers<SPAN class=260391813-02102009>, depending upon the filing date of the application.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><SPAN class=260391813-02102009><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>&nbsp;New utility nonprovisional applications that fall within one of the following groups may be eligible for the Enhanced First Action Interview Pilot Program: </FONT> <OL> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before November 1, 2006, and assigned to workgroup 1610&nbsp;(art units 161X).</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before October 1, 2006, and assigned to art unit 1795.</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before February 1, 2008, and assigned to&nbsp;workgroups&nbsp;2150 and&nbsp;2160&nbsp;(art units 215X and 216X).</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before July 1, 2008, and assigned to&nbsp;workgroups 2440 and 2450 (art units 244X and 245X).</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before June 1, 2007, and assigned to art unit 2617.</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before May 1, 2008, and assigned to art units 2811-2815, 2818, 2822-23, 2826, 2891-2895. </FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before December 1, 2007, and assigned to art unit 3671. </FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before January 1, 2008, and assigned to art unit 3672.</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before November 1, 2007, and assigned to art unit 3673.</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before February 1, 2008, and assigned to art unit 3676.</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before July 1, 2007, and assigned to art units 3677.</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before November 1, 2007, and assigned to art units 3679.</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before May 1, 2006, and assigned to art unit 3735.</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before April 1, 2007, and assigned to art unit 3736.</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before December 1, 2006, and assigned to art units 3737.</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before August 1, 2006, and assigned to art units 3768.</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before December 1, 2006, and assigned to art unit 3739.</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before September 1, 2007, and assigned to art units 3762 and 3766.</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applications filed on or before September 1, 2006, and assigned to art unit 3769.</FONT></SPAN></LI></OL> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff>Previously, all applicants had to go through all phases of the pilot&#8217;s procedure. After receiving a Pre-interview communication that contains the results of the examiner&#8217;s prior art search, applicants may&nbsp;<SPAN class=260391813-02102009>now </SPAN>choose from the following:</FONT> </FONT> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><FONT size=2 face=Arial>a. The full pilot procedure (Pre-interview communication, interview and first action). </FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2 face=Arial>b. Waiver of the interview (Pre-interview communication and first action only). </FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2 face=Arial>c. Waiver of the interview and first action (by filing a reply in compliance with 37 CFR 1.111(b) in response to the Pre-interview communication). </FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2 face=Arial>d. Waiver of the first action (by requesting entry of a proposed amendment during the interview). </FONT></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></LI></UL></DIV> <UL> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>The time period to reply set forth in the Pre-Interview Communication will be extendable by one additional month. (Previously, the time period for reply was non-extendable.)</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT color=#000000><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff>The time period within which to conduct the interview will be two months from the date of filing the interview request form.&nbsp;<SPAN class=260391813-02102009>(</SPAN>Previously, the time period was two months from the Office notice date for the Pre-interview communication.<SPAN class=260391813-02102009>)</SPAN></FONT> </FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Failure to timely reply to the Pre-Interview Communication or to timely conduct the interview will not result in abandonment of the application. Instead, a first action will be provided, similar to waiving the interview.</FONT> <LI> <P><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Applicant's request&nbsp;to participate in the program must be filed during the six month life of the program <U>and</U> at least one day before a first Office action on the merits of the application appears in the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.&nbsp; The request to enter the Pilot Program must be made&nbsp;via EFS-Web which can be accessed at: </FONT><A title=http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html href="http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html" target=_blank><FONT size=2 face=Arial>http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html</FONT></A></P></LI></UL> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></P> <P><SPAN class="xvertbar style21"><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><STRONG><SPAN class=260391813-02102009></SPAN></STRONG></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</P> <P><SPAN class="xvertbar style21"><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><STRONG><SPAN class=260391813-02102009>M</SPAN>ore&nbsp;<SPAN class=260391813-02102009>I</SPAN>nformation<SPAN class=260391813-02102009>:</SPAN></STRONG></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/faipp_original.htm"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Original Pilot Program</FONT></A><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> (04/28/08 - 06/28/08) </FONT><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/faipp_orig_eligibility.htm"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>(click for eligibility)</FONT></A></P> <P><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/faipp_enhanced.htm"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Enhanced Pilot Program</FONT></A><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> (10/01/09 - 04/01/10) <A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/faipp_enhanced_eligibility.htm"><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">(click for eligibility)</FONT></A></FONT></P> <DIV><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/faipp_enhanced.htm"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>For more information about the Enhanced Pilot Program, click here</FONT></A></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left> <ADDRESS><FONT size=2 face=Arial><A href="mailto:BillHeinze@yahoo.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank></A></FONT></ADDRESS></DIV><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT> <DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/faipp_changes.pdf"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Changes Between the Original and Enhanced Pilot Programs</FONT></A><SPAN class=260391813-02102009><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><SPAN class=260391813-02102009><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial><SPAN class="xvertbar style21"><STRONG>Forms:</STRONG></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left> <UL> <LI><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/sb0413c.pdf"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Request For First Action Interview (Pilot Program)</FONT></A><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff> <SPAN class=tinytext>[PDF]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> <LI><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/PTOL413A.pdf"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A)</FONT></A><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff> <SPAN class=tinytext>[PDF]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> <LI><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/form-ptol-413fp_enhanced.pdf"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>First Action Interview Pre-Interview Communication</FONT></A><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff> <SPAN class=tinytext>[PDF]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> <LI><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/fai_office_action_summary_enhanced.pdf"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>First Action Interview Office Action Summary</FONT></A><SPAN class=tinytext><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> [PDF]</FONT></SPAN></LI></UL> <H2><SPAN class=xsectionhead><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial><SPAN class="xvertbar style21">Examples:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></H2> <UL> <LI><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/fai_example_1_enhanced.pdf"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Pre-Interview Communication Example 1</FONT></A><SPAN class=tinytext><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> [PDF]</FONT></SPAN> <LI><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/fai_example_2_enhanced.pdf"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Pre-Interview Communication Example 2</FONT></A><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff> <SPAN class=tinytext>[PDF]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></LI></UL> <H2><SPAN class=xsectionhead><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial><SPAN class="xvertbar style21">Tips to Consider When Preparing for Interview: </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></H2> <UL> <LI><SPAN class="xsectionhead style5 "><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/fai_talking_points.pdf"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Interview Talking Points</FONT></A></SPAN><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff> <SPAN class=tinytext>[PDF]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></LI></UL> <H2 class=xsectionhead><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial><SPAN class="xvertbar "><SPAN class=style21>Slide Presentation:</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></H2> <UL> <LI><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/fai_overview_enhanced.ppt"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>First Action Interview Pilot Program: Overview</FONT></A><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff> <SPAN class=tinytext>[PPT]</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></LI></UL> <H2><SPAN class=xsectionhead><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial><SPAN class="xvertbar style21">Contacts:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></H2> <UL> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>RE: EFS-Web or PAIR system - contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197.</FONT> <LI><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>RE: a specific application - contact John Follansbee at (571) 272-3964. </FONT> <LI><FONT size=2 face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff>RE: the First-Action Interview Pilot Program Notice - contact Joseph Weiss ((571) 272-7759), Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, or e-mail </FONT><A href="mailto:first.action.interview@uspto.gov">first.action.interview@uspto.gov</A><FONT color=#0000ff>.</FONT></FONT></LI></UL></SPAN><SPAN class=xsectionhead><SPAN class="xvertbar style21"><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=260391813-02102009><STRONG>Press Release</STRONG></SPAN><STRONG>:</STRONG></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN><BR></DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><FONT face=Tahoma>----- Forwarded Message ----<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Karen Sewell &lt;karen.sewell@uspto.gov&gt;<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> BillHeinze@yahoo.com<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Thursday, October 1, 2009 2:23:31 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> USPTO Expands Pilot Program to Reduce Pendency and Improve Patent Quality<BR></FONT><BR>PRESS RELEASE&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; CONTACT: Jennifer Rankin Byrne or Ruth Nyblod<BR>October 1, 2009&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Phone:&nbsp; 571/272-8400 or <BR>#09-20&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <A href="mailto:Jennifer.Rankin_Byrne@uspto.gov" ymailto="mailto:Jennifer.Rankin_Byrne@uspto.gov">Jennifer.Rankin_Byrne@uspto.gov</A><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <A href="mailto:Ruth.Nyblod@uspto.gov" ymailto="mailto:Ruth.Nyblod@uspto.gov">Ruth.Nyblod@uspto.gov</A> <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <BR>USPTO Expands Pilot Program to Reduce Pendency and Improve Patent Quality<BR>First Action Interview Pilot enhances information exchange between applicant and examiner and promotes early resolution of outstanding issues <BR><BR>Washington &#8211; The Commerce Department&#8217;s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced that it is expanding its First Action Interview Pilot Program in which an applicant is entitled to an interview with the patent examiner prior to the first office action on the merits in a new utility application.&nbsp; The program will expand to additional technology areas for a six-month period beginning on October 1, 2009.&nbsp; The initial pilot program was limited to two computer-related technology areas.<BR><BR>The initial six-month pilot program, which began April 28, 2008, has shown that the patent process benefits when interaction between the applicant and the examiner are enhanced at the beginning of examination because patentability issues can be resolved early when the applicant and the examiner discuss them one-on-one.&nbsp; For the applications involved in the initial pilot, the First-Action Allowance rate increased six-fold when compared to applications from the same technology area not involved in the pilot. <BR><BR>&#8220;When people talk to one another and listen to one another they can quickly understand points of agreement as well as differences, and resolve those differences in real-time,&#8221; noted Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos.&nbsp; &#8220;Initial results from this pilot are very impressive and show that interviews present a clear path to resolve issues and move prosecution forward quickly.&#8221;<BR><BR>Currently, an applicant may request an interview prior to a first action. Granting of an interview is within the discretion of the examiner who has not yet reviewed the case, and the applicant may be required to identify relevant documents and explain how the invention is patentable over these documents.<BR><BR>Under the expanded pilot program, the examiner will conduct a prior art search and provide the applicant a pre-interview communication, which is a condensed preview of objections or rejections proposed against the claims.&nbsp; Within 30 days from the issue date of the pre-interview communication, the applicant must either choose not to have a first action interview with the examiner, or schedule the interview and file a proposed amendment or remarks (arguments).&nbsp; <BR><BR>Should the applicant choose not to have a first action interview, a First Action Interview office action will be promptly issued and the applicant will have one month or 30 days, whichever is longer, to reply.&nbsp; If an interview is scheduled, the applicant must be prepared to discuss issues related to the patentability of the claims.&nbsp; In this interview, if the applicant and the examiner reach agreement on all claims in regards to patentability, a notice of allowance and fees due will be issued.&nbsp; If agreement is not reached on all claims in regards to patentability, the applicant will be given a First Action Interview office action setting forth any requirements, objections and rejections to which the applicant will be given one month or 30 days, whichever is longer, to reply, with limited extensions of time.&nbsp; It is this First Action Interview office action that is considered the first action on the merits in the application.<BR><BR>There have been several improvements made to the program since the initial pilot. For example, the response period to reply to the pre-interview communication can now be extended by 30 days.&nbsp; Also, the applicant can now waive receipt of the First Action Interview office action during the interview with the examiner, convert the previously-submitted draft amendment to a formal amendment and proceed directly to the second substantive examination.&nbsp; This may be preferable to those who would prefer not to wait for the First Action Interview office action and refile the proposed amendment formally. <BR><BR>The USPTO will continue to survey applicants during the expanded pilot to make further improvements to the program.<BR><BR>For details regarding eligibility and criteria for participation in the pilot, see the USPTO Web site, at <A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/faipp_v2.htm" target=_blank>http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/faipp_v2.htm</A>.<BR><BR>###<SPAN class=260391813-02102009><FONT color=#0000ff>&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">&nbsp;</DIV></DIV></DIV>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-35924068318501475532009-10-13T05:51:00.002-04:002009-10-13T06:01:45.380-04:00FTC Revises Guides Governing Endorsements and TestimonialsThe Federal Trade Commission has issued revisions to its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials, which <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm">will take effect on December 1, 2009</a> under<a href="http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf">16 C.F.R. Part 255: Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising: Notice Announcing Adoption of Revised Guides</a>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-73950358494582291772009-07-09T11:38:00.000-04:002009-07-09T11:39:18.338-04:00TGIF for Religion and Intellectual Property<DIV><SPAN class=867313914-09072009><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>On July 7, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI published&nbsp;his third&nbsp;</FONT><A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical"><FONT face=Arial>encyclical letter</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial>&nbsp;titled </FONT></FONT></SPAN><A href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html" target=_new><FONT size=2 face=Arial>"Caritas in veritate" (Charity in Truth)</FONT></A><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>&nbsp;<SPAN class=867313914-09072009>which, among other things, </SPAN><SPAN class=867313914-09072009>states that "</SPAN>On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care<SPAN class=867313914-09072009>.&nbsp; At the same time, in some poor countries, cultural models and social norms of behaviour persist which hinder the process of development.</SPAN><SPAN class=867313914-09072009>"</SPAN>&nbsp;<SPAN class=867313914-09072009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=867313914-09072009><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=867313914-09072009></SPAN><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=867313914-09072009>In response, the </SPAN>I<SPAN class=867313914-09072009>ntellectual Property Owners Association&nbsp;announced&nbsp;that </SPAN><SPAN class=867313914-09072009>it </SPAN>and others&nbsp;<SPAN class=867313914-09072009>"</SPAN>are working to educate on the incentives that IP rights provide for advancing knowledge and creating jobs.<SPAN class=867313914-09072009>"</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=867313914-09072009><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=867313914-09072009><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Good luck in bringing some of that&nbsp;same religious fervor&nbsp;to your organization.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com234tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-27447162359016913132009-07-08T15:36:00.000-04:002009-07-08T15:37:59.166-04:00Evidence of Intent to Use Before the US Trademark Office<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The latest issue of <EM>The Trademark Reporter</EM> includes Sandra Edelman's timely and informative article on <EM>bona fide</EM> intent, entitled "</FONT><A href="http://home.comcast.net/~jlw28129/Edelman%20Bona%20Fide%20intent.pdf"><FONT color=#003366 size=2 face=Arial>Proving Your <EM>Bona Fides</EM> - Establishing Bona Fide Intent to Use Under the U.S. Trademark (Lanham) Act</FONT></A><FONT size=2 face=Arial>," 99 <EM>Trademark Reporter</EM> 763 (May-June 2009).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=847370421-01072009>According to <A href="http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2009/06/recommended-reading-sandra-edelman-on.html">the TTABlog,</A> t</SPAN>he&nbsp;<SPAN class=847370421-01072009>U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal </SPAN>Board's recent decision in </FONT></FONT><A href="http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91170552-OPP-37.pdf"><EM><FONT color=#003366 size=2 face=Arial>Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Friedrich Winkelmann</FONT></EM></A><FONT size=2 face=Arial>, 90 USPQ2d 1660 (TTAB 2009) [precedential], brought the <EM>bona fide</EM> intent issue to the forefront for many trademark practitioners.&nbsp;</FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>There the Board sustained Honda's opposition to Herr Winkelmann's Section 44(e) application to register the mark V.I.C. for vehicles, ruling on summary judgment that Winkelmann had failed to establish the <A href="http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/0900.htm#_T90102">requisite <EM>bona fide</EM> intent to use his mark in the USA</A>.</FONT></DIV> <P align=left><SPAN class=847370421-01072009><A href="http://home.comcast.net/~jlw28129/Edelman%20Bona%20Fide%20intent.pdf"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>According to Edelman</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>,"registration applicants should be very careful<SPAN class=847370421-01072009> </SPAN>about including too many products or services in their intent-to<SPAN class=847370421-01072009>-</SPAN>use<SPAN class=847370421-01072009> </SPAN>based applications, and should maintain some minimal level of<SPAN class=847370421-01072009> </SPAN>contemporaneous documentation and provable business rationale<SPAN class=847370421-01072009> </SPAN>for the products or services listed in the application.<SPAN class=437183519-08072009><FONT color=#0000ff>"&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P> <P align=left><SPAN class=847370421-01072009><FONT size=2 face=Arial>T</FONT></SPAN><FONT size=2 face=Arial>he affirmative activities that have been deemed<SPAN class=847370421-01072009> </SPAN>indicative of the<SPAN class=847370421-01072009> presence&nbsp;of </SPAN>a <A href="http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/1100.htm#_T1101">bona fide intent to use&nbsp;</A><SPAN class=847370421-01072009><A href="http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/1100.htm#_T1101">a trademark in commerce</A> </SPAN>include:</FONT></P> <UL type=disc> <LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>conducting a trademark availability search<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial Unicode MS'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT> <LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>performing preparatory graphic design work or labeling on sales material for a product;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT> <LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=2 face=Arial>using a mark in international jurisdictions</FONT> <LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=2 face=Arial>using a mark in test marketing</FONT> <LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=2 face=Arial>testimony regarding informal, unwritten business plans or market research</FONT> <LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=2 face=Arial>obtaining necessary regulatory permits</FONT> <LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=2 face=Arial>obtaining a correlative domain name for the mark or setting up a website</FONT> <LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=2 face=Arial>making contacts with individuals who might help develop a business;</FONT> <LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=2 face=Arial>correspondence mentioning the planned use of the mark</FONT> <LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=2 face=Arial>attempts to find licensees, including ones outside of the U.S.</FONT> <LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><FONT size=2>obtaining commercial space in which to perform the services</FONT></SPAN></LI></UL> <DIV style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in" class=MsoNormal> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The factual circumstances that have been deemed indicative of<SPAN class=847370421-01072009> </SPAN>a<SPAN class=847370421-01072009> lack o</SPAN>f a bona fide intent to use include:</FONT></P> <P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Symbol; FONT-SIZE: 7pt">&middot;<SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN></SPAN><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: CenturySchoolbook; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">an unrealistically broad listing of goods and services;</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: CenturySchoolbook; FONT-SIZE: 7pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P> <UL style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type=disc> <LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: CenturySchoolbook; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>a defensive intent to prevent others from using the mark;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN> <LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: CenturySchoolbook; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">the filing of numerous intent-to-use applications without<SPAN class=847370421-01072009> </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: CenturySchoolbook; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">ever using them or subsequently abandoning them;</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: CenturySchoolbook; FONT-SIZE: 7pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT> <LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: CenturySchoolbook; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">the absence of any steps or planning to use the mark;</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: CenturySchoolbook; FONT-SIZE: 7pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT> <LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: CenturySchoolbook; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>lack of industry-relevant experience;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN> <LI style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: CenturySchoolbook; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>misrepresentation of goods or services in order to reserve a mark</FONT></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: CenturySchoolbook; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></LI></UL> <P align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></P></SPAN></DIV>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-24052606253159224282009-05-20T13:31:00.001-04:002009-05-20T13:31:43.745-04:00Website "Means" Requires Algorithm Disclosure<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>In<I> Ex parte Catlin,</I> __ Westlaw __ (U.S. PTO Bd. App. &amp; Int.<SPAN class=647064221-05052009> February 3, 2009</SPAN>)(precedential), the&nbsp;Board<SPAN class=647064221-05052009> held that&nbsp;a method claim&nbsp;for implementing an on-line incentive system that recited&nbsp;"providing, at a merchant's web site, means<SPAN class=647064221-05052009> </SPAN>for a consumer to participate in an earning activity<SPAN class=647064221-05052009> </SPAN>to earn value from a merchant" was&nbsp;<SPAN class=647064221-05052009>invalid for indefiniteness&nbsp;under 35 U.S.C.&nbsp;<EM> </EM>Section 112, second paragraph, where the application failed to disclose any&nbsp;algorithms that transformed the disclosed general purpose processor to a special purpose<SPAN class=647064221-05052009> computer programmed to perform the disclosed functions:</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=647064221-05052009><SPAN class=647064221-05052009><FONT size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=647064221-05052009></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=647064221-05052009><SPAN class=647064221-05052009><FONT size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=647064221-05052009>According to Administrative Patent Judge Horner,</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=647064221-05052009><FONT color=#0000ff size=4 face="Times New Roman"><SPAN class=647064221-05052009><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#000000>. . . we have thoroughly reviewed the Appellants' Specification and have not been able to locate an adequate disclosure of structure, material, or acts corresponding to the functions of allowing a consumer to participate in an earning activity and earn value from an earning activity. In particular, the Specification does not disclose any specific algorithm that could be implemented on a general purpose computer to allow a consumer to participate in an earning activity and earn value from an earning activity. Accordingly, the Specification fails to disclose the algorithms that transform the general purpose processor to a special purpose <SPAN class=647064221-05052009><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>computer programmed to perform the disclosed functions of the first elements of claims 1, 9, and 20. The Appellant has failed to disclose any algorithm, and thus has failed to adequately describe sufficient structure, for performing the functions recited in the means elements contained in the first step of claims 1, 9, and 20 so as to render the claims definite.&nbsp;Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 20, and claims 2-8, 1 1 - 19, and 2 1-25 depending therefrom, are unpatentable . . .&nbsp;as indefinite.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> <P><FONT color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT></P></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-50860137476951551992009-05-20T13:29:00.000-04:002009-05-20T13:30:22.225-04:00UKIPO "Green Channel" for Expedited Searching and Examination of Eco-Friendly Technology; SIPO to Follow<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=487000813-12052009>T</SPAN><SPAN class=487000813-12052009>he <A href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about/press/press-release/press-release-2009/press-release-20090512.htm">UK Intellectual Property&nbsp;Office has initiated a&nbsp;</A></SPAN></FONT></FONT><A href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about/press/press-release/press-release-2009/press-release-20090512.htm"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>"Green Channel"</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>&nbsp;<SPAN class=487000813-12052009>where </SPAN>applicants will be able to request accelerated processing of their application if the invention relates to a 'green' or environmentally-friendly technology.<SPAN class=487000813-12052009>&nbsp; </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-patent/p-law/p-pn/p-pn-green.htm"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>To enter the Green Channel</FONT></A><FONT size=2 face=Arial>, the applicant must make a request in writing, indicating:</FONT></DIV> <UL> <LI><FONT size=2 face=Arial>that their application relates to a &#8216;green&#8217; or environmentally-friendly technology and</FONT> <LI><FONT size=2 face=Arial>which actions they wish to accelerate: Search, Combined Search and Examination, Publication, and/or Examination.</FONT></LI></UL> <P><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The Office will require no further reasons for accelerated processing.<SPAN class=487000813-12052009>&nbsp;&nbsp;</SPAN>This service will apply to existing applications as well as to applications filed after&nbsp;May&nbsp;<SPAN class=487000813-12052009>12, </SPAN>2009. You can find further information about the various accelerated services&nbsp;in&nbsp;<SPAN class=487000813-12052009>the</SPAN> </FONT><A title="Patents fast grant guidance" href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-fastgrantguide.pdf" rel=pdf target=_blank><FONT size=2 face=Arial>patents fast grant guidance</FONT></A><FONT size=2 face=Arial>.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=487000813-12052009>According to the press release, "t</SPAN>he &#8216;green&#8217; patents initiative was one of the key deliverables announced at the UK/China Economic and Financial Dialogue on&nbsp;May<SPAN class=487000813-12052009> 11</SPAN>, with <STRONG><FONT color=#0000ff>China already agreeing to adopt the proposal</FONT></STRONG>.<SPAN class=487000813-12052009>&nbsp; </SPAN>The Intellectual Property Office is working with other major trading partners to get them to sign-up to the green patents fast-track system.<SPAN class=487000813-12052009>"</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=487000813-12052009>In the U.S., so-called "</SPAN>petitions to make special<SPAN class=487000813-12052009>"</SPAN>&nbsp;<SPAN class=487000813-12052009>(</SPAN>except those based on applicant&#8217;s health, age, or the </FONT></FONT><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/pph/pph_index.html"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>PPH pilot program</FONT></A><SPAN class=487000813-12052009></SPAN><FONT size=2 face=Arial>),&nbsp;<SPAN class=487000813-12052009>are&nbsp;</SPAN>required to comply with the&nbsp;<SPAN class=487000813-12052009>detailed </SPAN>requirements for&nbsp;the accelerated examination program as set forth in </FONT><A href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/accelerated/"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>this notice</FONT></A><FONT size=2 face=Arial>.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2 face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT></P></FONT>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com31tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-2433663943281777282009-05-20T13:27:00.000-04:002009-05-20T13:28:13.412-04:00Federal Circuit Standard of Review for ITC Decisions<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=601563214-20052009><FONT size=2>In </FONT></SPAN><A href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1358.pdf"><FONT size=2>Erbe Elektromedizin GMBH v. International Trade Commission</FONT></A><SPAN class=601563214-20052009></SPAN><FONT size=2>&nbsp;(Fed. Cir. 2009<SPAN class=601563214-20052009>; May 19, 2009), the court&nbsp;restated its standard of review for decisions of the U.S. International Trade Commission:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV><FONT size=3><FONT size=2 face=Arial>We review the rulings of the ITC under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c); <U>Osram GmbH v. Int'l Trade Comm'n</U>, 505 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007). "Rulings of law by the ITC are reviewed for correctness, and findings of fact are reviewed to ascertain whether they were supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole." <U>Osram</U>, 505 F.3d at 1355.<SPAN class=601563214-20052009> . . .</SPAN>&nbsp;</FONT></DIV> <P><FONT size=2 face=Arial>We review claim construction de novo. <U>Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.</U>, 138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). The claims "must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part." <U>Phillips v. AWH Corp.</U>, 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting <U>Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.</U>, 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)). We generally do not construe claim language to be inconsistent with the clear language of the specification; "[u]sually, it is dispositive." <U>Phillips</U>, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting <U>Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.</U>, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).</FONT>&nbsp;<SPAN class=601563214-20052009><FONT size=2 face=Arial>. . .</FONT></SPAN></P><SPAN class=601563214-20052009><SPAN class=601563214-20052009> <P><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=601563214-20052009>. . . </SPAN>the fundamental disagreement between the parties boils down to whether fixed optics are a "working channel." </FONT></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>. . .</FONT></SPAN><FONT size=2 face=Arial>&nbsp;the parties agree that infringement requires the accused devices to be used with an endoscope having at least two "working channels" and that the accused devices have only a single "working channel" if the fixed optics are not a "working channel." Based on our claim construction, the ITC correctly concluded that ERBE presented no evidence that any accused device had been used with an endoscope that had at least two "working channels" and, therefore, that there was no evidence of direct infringement and thus no basis for finding induced or contributory infringement. In light of this holding, we need not address the other arguments raised on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.</FONT> </P></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-25998561529318885112009-05-01T14:39:00.000-04:002009-05-01T14:40:09.756-04:00Federal Circuit Clarifies Materiality Test for Geographically Deceptively Misdescriptive Marks<DIV><SPAN class=794004213-01052009><FONT size=2 face=Arial>In </FONT></SPAN><A title=http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/182094/5135549/http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1369.pdf href="http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/182094/5135549/http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1369.pdf"><FONT color=#000088 size=2 face=Arial><EM><U>In re Spirits International, N.V.</U></EM></FONT></A><FONT size=2 face=Arial>,&nbsp;(April 29, 2009)<SPAN class=794004213-01052009>,&nbsp;t</SPAN>he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit&nbsp;vacated the TTAB's decision&nbsp;in which the Board found the mark MOSKOVSKAYA<SPAN class=910243718-01052009>&nbsp;</SPAN>to be primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of vodka. (TTAB decision </FONT><A title=http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/182094/5135549/http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-74382759-EXA-19.pdf href="http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/182094/5135549/http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-74382759-EXA-19.pdf"><FONT color=#000088 size=2 face=Arial>here</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=910243718-01052009>&nbsp; via the TTABlog</SPAN>). The CAFC ruled that the Board had improperly applied the materiality test of Section 2(e)(3) because it failed to consider whether a substantial portion of all relevant consumers (not just Russian speakers) is likely to be deceived<SPAN class=794004213-01052009>:</SPAN> </FONT></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV> <P align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>In this case, as in every case, in order to<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>establish a prima facie case of materiality there must be some indication that a<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>substantial portion of the relevant consumers would be materially influenced in the<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>decision to purchase the product or service by the geographic meaning of the mark.<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>Here the Board properly recognized that in order to be deceptive, foreign language<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>marks must meet the requirement that &#8220;an appreciable number of consumers for the<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>goods or services at issue will be deceived.&#8221; In re Spirits, 86 USPQ2d at 1085. </FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>The<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>problem with the Board&#8217;s decision is that it elsewhere rejected a requirement of<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>proportionality, and discussed instead the fact that Russian is a &#8220;common, modern<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>language[] of the world [that] will be spoken or understood by an appreciable number of<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN class=794004213-01052009><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>U.S. consumers for the product or service at issue,&#8221; such number being in this case </FONT><FONT face=Arial>706,000 people, according to the 2000 Census. Id. The Board, however, failed to </FONT><FONT face=Arial>consider whether Russian speakers were a &#8220;substantial portion of the intended </FONT><FONT face=Arial>audience.&#8221; Because the Board applied an incorrect test, a remand is required.</FONT></FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>We express no opinion on the ultimate question of whether a substantial portion<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>of the intended audience would be materially deceived. We note that only 0.25% of the<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>U.S. population speaks Russian. Appellant&#8217;s Br. 26. If only one quarter of one percent<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>of the relevant consumers was deceived, this would not be, by any measure, a<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>substantial portion. However, it may be that Russian speakers are a greater percentage<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>of the vodka-consuming public; that some number of non-Russian speakers would<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>understand the mark to suggest that the vodka came from Moscow; and that these<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial>groups would together be a substantial portion of the intended audience.</FONT></FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>We remand to the Board for a determination of whether there is a prima facie<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>case of material deception under the correct legal test in the first instance. Because of<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>our disposition on the question of the prima facie case, we do not reach the questions<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>raised by the appellant as to the Board&#8217;s rejection of the survey as rebutting the prima<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>facie case, though we note that the Board&#8217;s holding as to this issue was heavily<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial>influenced by its incorrect view of materiality.</FONT></FONT></P></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-22782983032145855352009-05-01T14:37:00.000-04:002009-05-01T14:38:08.163-04:00USTR Releases 2009 Special 301 Report<DIV dir=ltr align=left> <DIV><FONT size=4 face=Arial><STRONG></STRONG></FONT></DIV></DIV> <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)&nbsp;released its annual <A href="http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2009/2009_Special_301_Report/Section_Index.html"><U>&#8220;Special 301&#8221; Report</U></A> on&nbsp;<SPAN class=794004213-01052009>April 30, 2009 covering </SPAN>the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection by <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> trading partners.<SPAN>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><SPAN>&nbsp;</SPAN></SPAN><FONT size=2 face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Significant developments in this year&#8217;s Report include:</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></DIV> <DIV> <P style="TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt" class=Default><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Symbol; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><SPAN>&middot;<SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><B><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Canada</SPAN></B></st1:place></st1:country-region><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> is being elevated to the Priority Watch List for the first time, </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">reflecting increasing concern about the continuing need for copyright reform, as well as continuing concern about weak border enforcement.</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P> <P style="TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt" class=Default><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Symbol; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><SPAN>&middot;<SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">USTR is also elevating <st1:country-region w:st="on"><B>Algeria</B></st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><B>Indonesia</B></st1:place></st1:country-region> to the Priority Watch List, reflecting growing concern about the IPR situation in those countries.&nbsp;</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P> <P style="TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt" class=Default><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Symbol; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><SPAN>&middot;<SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><B><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Korea</SPAN></B></st1:place></st1:country-region><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> is being removed from the Watch List in recognition of the significant improvements it has made during the past year, and the Korean Government&#8217;s policy direction of continuing to place a priority on improving its IPR regime.<SPAN>&nbsp; </SPAN>This marks the first time in the history of the report that <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Korea</st1:place></st1:country-region> has not appeared on either the Watch List or the Priority Watch List.<SPAN>&nbsp; </SPAN>USTR will, however, continue to monitor closely the ongoing problem of Internet piracy in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Korea</st1:country-region>, and will be prepared to consider returning <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Korea</st1:place></st1:country-region> to the Watch List in the future if it does not respond effectively to this challenge</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> through its implementation of newly enacted legislation and other steps.</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P> <P style="TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt" class=Default><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Symbol; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><SPAN>&middot;<SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Again this year, USTR&#8217;s Special 301 Report highlights the prominence of IPR concerns with respect to <st1:country-region w:st="on"><B>China</B></st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><B>Russia</B></st1:place></st1:country-region>, despite some evidence of improvement in both countries:<SPAN>&nbsp;&nbsp;</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P> <P style="TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 72pt" class=Default><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><SPAN>o<SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">USTR announced that it would maintain pressure on <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region> by including it on the Priority Watch List.<SPAN>&nbsp; </SPAN>&#8220;I am particularly </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">troubled by reports that Chinese officials are urging more lenient enforcement of IPR laws, motivated by the financial crisis and the need to maintain jobs,&#8221; said Ambassador Kirk. &#8220;<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region> needs to strengthen its approach to IPR protection and enforcement, not weaken it.&#8221;</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P> <P style="TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 72pt" class=Default><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><SPAN>o<SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The Administration also continues to seek improvements to the intellectual property regime in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Russia</st1:place></st1:country-region>.<SPAN>&nbsp; </SPAN>The <st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region> is committed to ensuring that <st1:country-region w:st="on">Russia</st1:country-region> fulfills the promises it made to improve its IPR protection and enforcement regimes as part of a bilateral agreement with the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>.</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P> <P style="TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt" class=Default><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>&nbsp;</P></FONT></DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial> <DIV></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-54995154915794081132009-05-01T14:36:00.001-04:002009-05-01T14:36:59.262-04:00U.S. TTAB: No Famous Marks Doctrine<DIV><SPAN class=794004213-01052009><FONT size=2 face=Arial>In </FONT></SPAN><A title=http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/182094/5135549/http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92047741-CAN-25.pdf href="http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/182094/5135549/http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92047741-CAN-25.pdf"><EM><FONT color=#000088 size=2 face=Arial>Bayer Consumer Care AG v. Belmora LLC</FONT></EM></A><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>,&nbsp;Cancellation No. 92047741 (April 6, 2009) [precedential]<SPAN class=794004213-01052009>, the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board held that their is no <A href="http://www.dorsey.com/files/tbl_s13News/PDF95/2690/Deinhard_Stasik1006.pdf">famous marks Doctrine</A> in the U.S.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=794004213-01052009></SPAN>. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>Bayer alleged that its mark was "well-known" in this country prior to Belmora's filing date and that Belmora copied its mark and packaging for the FLANAX product<SPAN class=794004213-01052009>.&nbsp;&nbsp;</SPAN>The Board pointed out that the Paris Convention is not self-executing, and that "Articles 6<EM>bis</EM> and 6<EM>ter</EM> do not afford an independent cause of action for parties in Board proceedings." Nor does Section 44 of the Trademark Act "provide the user of an assertedly famous foreign trademark with an independent basis for cancellation in a Board proceeding<SPAN class=794004213-01052009>.&nbsp; According to the TTAB,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial><FONT face=Courier> <P align=left></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Turning next to petitioner&#8217;s claim under Article 6<I>bis<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN></I>of the Paris Convention, &#8220;the Paris Convention is not selfexecuting.<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>As such, Articles 6<I>bis </I>and 6<I>ter </I>do not afford an<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>independent cause of action for parties in Board<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>proceedings.&#8221; International Finance Corp. v. Bravo Co., 64<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>USPQ2d 1597, 1603 (TTAB 2002); see also, In re Rath, 402<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>F.3d 1207, 74 USPQ2d 1174, 1175 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (&#8220;the Paris<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>Convention is not a self-executing treaty and requires<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>congressional implementation&#8221;), and Person&#8217;s Co. Ltd. v.<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>Christman, 900 F.2d 1565, 14 USPQ2d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir.1990); compare, British-American Tobacco Co. v. Philip<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>Morris, Inc., 55 USPQ2d 1585 (TTAB 2000) (denying motion to<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>dismiss claim under Pan American Convention in part because<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>Convention is self-executing).</FONT></P> <P align=left><FONT size=2>Furthermore, while Section 44 was &#8220;generally intended&#8221;<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>to implement elements of the Paris Convention, In re Rath,<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>402 F.3d at 1207, 74 USPQ2d at 1177, it does not, through<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>subsections 44(b) or (h) or otherwise, provide the user of<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>an assertedly famous foreign trademark with an independent<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>basis for cancellation in a Board proceeding, absent use of<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>the mark in the United States. See, ITC Ltd. V. Punchgini<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>Inc., 482 F.3d 135, 82 USPQ2d 1414, 1433 (2d Cir. 2007),<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 288 (2007) (&#8220;Congress&#8217;s specificity<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>in dealing with registered marks cautions against reading a<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>famous marks exception into sections 44(b) and (h), which<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> nowhere reference the doctrine, much less the circumstances under which it would appropriately apply despite the fact that the foreign mark was not used in this country.&#8221;).</SPAN></FONT></P> <P align=left><SPAN class=794004213-01052009><FONT size=2>We acknowledge that the Second Circuit in Punchgini discussed the possible recognition by this Board and by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of a famous mark exception to the territoriality principle, the latter Court apparently recognizing the doctrine &#8220;as a matter of sound policy,&#8221; in Grupo Gigante S.A. de C.V. v. Dallo &amp; Co., 391 F.3d 1088, 73 USPQ2d 1258 (9th Cir. 2004). Punchgini, 82 USPQ2d at 1430. However, the Second Circuit also noted that neither the referenced Board cases, one of which addressed the possible exception only in dictum, nor the Grupo Gigante decision found the exception to arise in the context of an Article 6<I>bis </I>claim. Id. at 1429-30. And petitioner&#8217;s claim is, as noted, based on Article 6<I>bis </I>of the Paris Convention. fn4 For all of these reasons, respondent&#8217;s motion is <B>GRANTED </B>with respect to petitioner&#8217;s claim under Article 6<I>bis </I>of the Paris Convention, and the claim is hereby <B>DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE</B>.</FONT></SPAN></P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr><FONT size=2><SPAN class=794004213-01052009> <P align=left><SPAN class=794004213-01052009>fn</SPAN>4<SPAN class=794004213-01052009>.</SPAN> <FONT size=3><FONT face=Courier><FONT size=2 face=Arial>In any event, respondent amply demonstrates that a famous<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>mark exception, whatever its possible basis in law, is a minority<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>view, and that most courts which have considered the issue find<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>that there is no cause of action under such an exception where,<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>as here, the plaintiff relies on foreign use alone. Respondent&#8217;s<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>Motion to Dismiss at pp. 5-10. More importantly, in Grupo<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>Gigante, the Ninth Circuit found that &#8220;the Paris Convention<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>creates neither a federal cause of action nor additional<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>substantive rights&#8221; beyond those in the Lanham Act. Id., 73<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>USPQ2d at 1266. And Board decisions discussing the possibility<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>of a famous foreign mark exception in the common law do not hold<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>to the contrary. See, First Niagara Insurance Brokers Inc. v.<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>First Niagara Financial Group Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1334 (TTAB 2005),<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>rev&#8217;d on other grounds, 476 F.3d 867, 81 USPQ2d 1375 (Fed. Cir.<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>2007), The All England Lawn Tennis Club (Wimbledon) Limited v.<SPAN class=794004213-01052009> </SPAN>Creations Aromatiques, Inc., 220 USPQ 1069 (TTAB 1983)&nbsp;</FONT><SPAN class=794004213-01052009><FONT size=2 face=Arial>. . .</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-30824701030966492812009-05-01T14:07:00.000-04:002009-05-01T14:08:44.474-04:00U.S. Trademark Fraud Cured Post-RegistrationThanks to the TTABlog for pointing out a non-precedential decision of the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board from October 2008 that adopted the approach of the panel majority in University Games in ruling that correction of a false statement regarding use, if made before a registration has been challenged, creates "a rebuttable presumption that [registrant] did not intend to commit fraud." Zanella Ltd. v. Nordstrom, Inc., Opposition No. 91177858 (October 23, 2008) [not precedential]. According to John Welch,<br /><blockquote>It appears from this decision that fraud may be curable even after<br />registration, as long as the false statement regarding use is corrected before<br />the registration is challenged. Note well that this is a non-precedential<br />decision by one panel of the TTAB, so it is not etched in stone. But it is<br />certainly a promising approach to the fraud problem. . . .<br /><br />Let the post-registration fraudits begin!! [Maybe we should call them "f®audits"?] </blockquote>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-82910851417740719982009-05-01T14:04:00.001-04:002009-05-01T14:06:34.703-04:00TTAB Clarifies Requirements for Intent-to-Use Application Based on Foreign RegistrationIn Honda Motor Co., Ltd v. Friedrich Winkelmann (Opposition No. 91170552), the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the "TTAB") recently ruled that even though actual "use in commerce" is not required, the applicant must possess a bona fide intent to use a mark in U.S. commerce at the time it files a trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under Section 44(e). Under that section of the trademark statute, a mark registered in a foreign country may be registered on the U.S. registry, but the application must state the applicant has a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce for the described goods and services. See Lanham Act § 44(e), 15 U.S.C. 1126(e). Although Section 44 does not require evidence of actual use in U.S. commerce prior to registration, the recent TTAB decision has put some teeth into Section 44(e)'s intent-to-use requirement.Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-49756721664255374132009-05-01T14:02:00.001-04:002009-05-01T14:04:06.559-04:00New U.S. Patent Status Monitoring ServicePriorSmart (http://www.priorsmart.com/) will monitor the docket of any application, reexamination, or issued patent and then e-mail reports. "Track documents affecting your litigation or freedom–to–operate opinion; Monitor competitors en masse; Be alerted to new continuations or divisionals."<br /><br />You just select how long you want your document(s) monitored, how often you want to be alerted, and what billing code to assign to the document. The pricing structure is shown below.<br /><br />Monitoring frequency Cost<br /><br />Monthly $3.97 $47.64 per year<br />Weekly $7.97 $95.64<br />Daily $15.97 $191.64Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-90111040347069841102009-04-22T16:18:00.003-04:002009-04-22T16:32:09.248-04:00U.S. Trademark Fraud Cured Post-Registration<a href="http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2009/04/ttab-rules-non-precedentially-that.html">Thanks to the TTABlog</a> for pointing out a non-precedential decision of the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board from October 2008 ruling that correction of a false statement regarding use, if made before a registration has been challenged, creates "a rebuttable presumption that [registrant] did not intend to commit fraud." <a href="http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91177858-OPP-22.pdf">Zanella Ltd. v. Nordstrom, Inc., Opposition No. 91177858 (October 23, 2008) [not precedential].</a> According to John Welch,<br /><br /><blockquote><p>It appears from this decision that fraud may be curable even after registration, as long as the false statement regarding use is corrected before the<br />registration is challenged. Note well that this is a non-precedential decision<br />by one panel of the TTAB, so it is not etched in stone. But it is certainly a<br />promising approach to the fraud problem. . . .</p><p>Let the post-registration fraudits begin!! [Maybe we should call them "f®audits"?]</p></blockquote>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-23195542331708479262009-04-15T12:58:00.002-04:002009-04-15T13:02:59.968-04:00Dependent Claim Element Insufficient to Trigger U.S. InventorshipIn <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1363.pdf">Nartron Corp. v. Schukra U.S.A., Inc. (March 5, 2009)</a> the Federal Circuit court of appeals reiterated that one "does not necessarily attain the status of co-inventor by providing the sole feature of a dependent claim." In this case, dependent claim 11 recited "The [seat control module for introducing massage to a seat control with an adjustable lumbar support] invention as defined in claim 6 wherein said lumbar support adjustor includes an extender."<br /><br />According to the opinion by Circuit Judge Lourie,<br /><br /><blockquote>We agree with Nartron that there is no genuine issue of material fact in this case and that Benson was not, as a result of suggesting an extender, a co-inventor of claim 11 of the ’748 patent as a matter of law. Any contribution Benson made to the invention described in claim 11 by contributing an extender was insignificant and therefore prevents Benson from attaining the status of a co-inventor. "One who simply provides the inventor with well-known principles or explains the state of the art without ever having a firm and definite idea of the claimed combination as a whole does not qualify as a joint inventor." Ethicon, 135 F.3d at 1460 (quotation marks omitted); see Caterpillar Inc. v. Sturman Indus., Inc., 387 F.3d 1358, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[A] person will not be a co-inventor if he or she does no more than explain to the real inventors concepts that are well known in the current state of the art." (quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, a joint inventor must "contribute in some significant manner to the conception or reduction to practice of the invention [and] make a contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention."<br />Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see Caterpillar, 387<br />F.3d at 1377 (quoting Fina Oil &amp; Chem. Co. v. Ewen, 123 F.3d 1466, 1473<br />(Fed. Cir. 1997)).<br /><br />. . . .the contribution of the extender is insignificant when measured against the full dimension of the invention of claim 11, not just because it was in the prior art, but because it was part of existing automobile seats, and therefore including it as part of the claimed invention was merely the basic exercise of ordinary skill in the art. See Fina Oil, 123 F.3d at 1473 ("The basic exercise of the normal skill expected of one skilled in the art, without an inventive act, also does not make one a joint inventor. Therefore, a person will not be a co-inventor if he or she does no more than explain to the real inventors concepts that are well known and the current state of the art." (citations omitted)); see also Eli Lilly, 376 F.3d at 1362 ("A contribution of information in the prior art cannot give rise to joint inventorship because it is not a contribution to conception.").<br /><br />Borg Indak admitted at oral argument that a lumbar support adjustor with an extender existed in automobile seats in the prior art. Thus, Benson’s contribution of supplying the extender to the patented invention was the exercise of ordinary<br />skill in the art. The specification of the ’748 patent makes clear that the<br />automobile seat, including its lumbar support adjustor and extender, comprises<br />the existing object on which the invention (i.e., the control module) operates,<br />or the background to the invention. . . . As Borg Indak admitted, the extender<br />was an existing feature in an automobile seat. In fact, the necessity for the<br />invention described in the ’748 patent arose from the fact that existing<br />automobile seats had the parts required to provide a massage (e.g., lumbar<br />support adjustors including extenders), but simply lacked the controller that<br />would move those parts in a way that would provide a massage. . . .Thus,<br />Benson’s suggestion that the control module be capable of operating with an<br />automobile seat that has a lumbar support adjustor including an extender only<br />amounted to the exercise of ordinary skill in the art.<br /><br />Further supporting the conclusion that Benson’s contribution of the extender was<br />insignificant when measured against the full dimension of the invention of claim<br />11, the specification and claims of the ’748 patent primarily focus not on the<br />structure of the seat itself, but on the structure and function of the control<br />module, which operates the seat. The specification mentions the extender only<br />once in a twenty-column patent.<br /><br />The only time that the specification mentions the extender, it does no more than refer to it as the background upon which the invention is built. . . . The patent contains no description of the physical characteristics of the extender, nor does it contain any drawing of the<br />extender.<br /><br />. . . This is not a case in which a person claims to be an inventor because he has suggested a non-obvious combination of prior art elements to the named inventors. Such an individual may be a co-inventor. There is not, and could not be, any claim that the addition of the extender here was anything but obvious. Benson’s contribution therefore does not make him a co-inventor of the subject matter of claim 11. </blockquote>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-25047355761036837262009-04-15T12:56:00.000-04:002009-04-15T12:58:30.803-04:00Utility Model Protection In ChinaAccording to Professor Wegner, yesterday, "at the opening of the oral hearing in the Zhejiang High People's Court in Chint v. Schneider, Chinese utility model holder Chint completed its major victory over French competitor Schneider through an unprecedented $ 23 million settlement (RMB 157 million), approximately half the damages awarded two years ago by the Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court."<br /><br />He also offers a few lessons from Foley and Lardner's presentation on "China Patent Practice: The New Realities Strategies for Success for the Multinational Enterprise," including<br /><ul><li>The 828,000 Chinese patent, utility model and design applications filed last year represent –by far –the largest number of patent filings of any country in the world. </li><li>Because early patent protection will not be possible [due to rising application backlogs], utility model protection should be considered as an alternative. </li><li>Less than one (1) percent of utility model applications are by foreign enterprises.</li><li>Utility model protection is excellent for prompt grant of the patent right. </li><li>The patent is registered with a substantive examination deferred until enforcement. </li><li>Utility model protection is an excellent way to quickly boost the size of granted patent protection. </li><li>Utility model protection has resulted in very high damages awards on a case by case basis </li><li>a trade secret invention practiced in the United States may still be the basis for patenting in other countries; Only the United States adopted the unique bar against patenting an applicant’s secret invention. No other country has followed the U.S. lead of Judge Learned Hand in <em>Metallizing Engineering</em>. </li><li>it is anticipated that many disputes will arise as to ownership of improvement inventions that are made as part of outsourcing or joint venture agreements. </li></ul>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-55047044890338180002009-04-15T10:06:00.003-04:002009-04-15T11:01:15.887-04:00Gasket on Flange Not Equivalent to Gasket on Lid<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">In </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1367.pdf">Felix v. American Honda Motor Co.</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> (April 10, 2009) the Federal Circuit held that </span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the patent was not literally infringed because the accused product mounted a gasket on the automobile trunk lid, not on a flange as claimed in the patent. The patent was not infringed under the doctrine of equivalents because Felix surrendered claim scope with amendments made during USPTO prosecution.</span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />According to the opinion by Circuit Judge Linn,<br /><blockquote>On Honda’s second motion for summary judgment, the district court held that Felix was precluded under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel from arguing that the In-Bed Trunk infringed the gasket limitation by equivalents. Equivalents Op. at 7. Felix argues that he rebutted the presumption of prosecution history estoppel by showing that the amendment giving rise to the estoppel was tangential to the equivalent in question—namely, a gasket mounted on the lid, rather than the flange of the channel. . . .<br /><br />. . . Amendment-based prosecution history estoppel “arises when an amendment is made to secure the patent and the amendment narrows the patent’s scope.” Festo, 535 U.S. at 736. “A patentee’s decision to narrow his claims through amendment may be presumed to be a general disclaimer of the territory between the original claim and the amended claim.” Id. at 740. But the patentee may rebut this presumption by “demonstrat[ing] that the alleged equivalent would have been unforeseeable at the time of the narrowing amendment, that the rationale underlying the narrowing amendment bore no more than a tangential relation to the equivalent in question, or that there was ‘some other reason’ suggesting that the patentee could not reasonably have been expected to have described the alleged equivalent.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., . . .<br /><br />1. Presumption of Surrender<br /><br />We first consider which amendment—if any—gave rise to a presumption of surrender of claim scope encompassing the equivalent at it issue. The limitation at issue here is the gasket limitation. That limitation was not contained in original independent claim 1, but was present in dependent claim 7. In Felix’s first amendment on September 10, 1999, he cancelled original claim 1 and rewrote original dependent claim 7 in independent form as claim 14 to contain all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7. J.A. 490-91. It was this first amendment that had the effect of adding the channel and gasket limitations of dependent claim 7 to the broader claim that was cancelled. “[T]he rewriting of dependent claims into independent form coupled with the cancellation of the original independent claims creates a presumption of prosecution history estoppel.” Honeywell, 370 F.3d at 1134. Thus, Felix’s decision in the first amendment to cancel original claim 1 and to rewrite original claim 7 in independent form as claim 14 gave rise to a presumption of surrender.<br /><br />The interesting wrinkle in this case is that even after Felix cancelled original independent claim 1 and rewrote original dependent claim 7 in independent form, the examiner still did not allow the rewritten dependent claim. In other words, even though Felix amended the claim and thereby narrowed its scope in an effort to secure allowance, that effort did not succeed.5 It was only after claim 8 was rewritten in independent form to include the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 8 that the claim was allowed.<br /><br />The fact that the first amendment did not succeed and that a further amendment was required to place the claim in allowable form, however, is of no consequence as to the estoppel. It is the patentee’s response to a rejection—not the examiner’s ultimate allowance of a claim—that gives rise to prosecution history estoppel. . . .We therefore hold that the presumption of prosecution history estoppel attaches when a patentee cancels an independent claim and rewrites a dependent claim in independent form for reasons related to patentability, even if the amendment alone does not succeed in placing the claim in condition for allowance.<br /><br />It is also immaterial in this case that the cancellation and amendment were to application claims 1, 7, and 14—rather than to application claims 8 and 16, which resulted in the asserted claim. The presumption of surrender “applies to all claims containing the [added] [l]imitation, regardless of whether the claim was, or was not, amended during prosecution.” Deering, 346 F.3d at 1326. . . . To hold otherwise would be to exalt form over substance and distort the logic of this jurisprudence, which serves as an effective and useful guide to the understanding of patent claims. The fact that the [the limitation in question] was not itself amended during prosecution does not mean that it can be extended by the doctrine of equivalents to cover the precise subject matter that was relinquished in order to obtain allowance of [another claim].”). Thus, in this case, the cancellation of original independent claim 1 coupled with the rewriting of original dependent claim 7 as independent claim 14 gave rise to a presumption of surrender applicable to all limitations, found in any of the claims of the ’625 patent, that correspond to the limitations of claim 7.<br /><br />We next turn to the scope of the presumptive surrender. “[W]hen a claim is rewritten from dependent into independent form and the original independent claim is cancelled . . . the surrendered subject matter is defined by the cancellation of independent claims that do not include a particular limitation and the rewriting into independent form of dependent claims that do include that limitation. Equivalents are presumptively not available with respect to that added limitation.” Honeywell, 370 F.3d at 1144. Equivalents are therefore presumptively not available as to any of the subject matter added in Felix’s first amendment. It is immaterial that Felix chose to add both the channel and the gasket limitations, rather than just one. The resulting estoppel attaches to each added limitation. See Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 525 F.3d 1200, 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“It is not relevant to the determination of the scope of the surrender that the applicant did not need to amend the claims [as they were amended] in order to overcome the prior art.”) . . . Felix is therefore presumptively barred from relying on the doctrine of equivalents to prove that Honda’s In-Bed Trunk meets the gasket limitation—one of the two limitations added by amendment.<br /><br />2. Tangentiality<br /><br />Felix argues that he has rebutted the presumption of prosecution history estoppel as to the gasket limitation, because “the rationale underlying the narrowing amendment bore no more than a tangential relation to the equivalent in question.” Felix argues that the first amendment “was made because the applicant thought the prior art lacked a channel,” not because of the presence or position of a gasket. Appellant’s Br. at 34. . . .<br /><br />Felix relies on the language in his argument to the examiner that “the cited references do not show the channel of Claim 7, which is formed at the rim of the bed opening, in combination with the other structure of Claims 1 and 7.” J.A. 494. We reject Felix’s argument for two reasons. First, the cited language in Felix’s argument to the examiner expressly refers not only to the “channel of Claim 7” but also to the “other structure” of the claims. It is therefore not “objectively apparent” from this argument that the channel was the only reason for cancelling original claim 1 and rewriting dependent claim 7 in independent form, as Felix argues. Second, the cited language does not explain the entire amendment. If Felix had intended only to add a channel and not add a gasket, he could easily have simply amended original claim 1 to add limitation (e) and not limitation (f). Thus, Felix has identified no explanation in the prosecution history for the addition of the gasket limitation, and Felix therefore cannot meet his burden to show that the rationale for adding the gasket limitation was tangential to the presence and position of a gasket.<br /><br />. . . Because we conclude that Felix is barred by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel from relying on the doctrine of equivalents to prove that the accused In-Bed Trunk meets the gasket limitation, we also affirm the district court’s summary judgment of no infringement by equivalents.<br /><br />. . . We agree with the district court that prosecution history estoppel bars Felix from relying on the doctrine of equivalents to show that Honda’s In-Bed Trunk meets the gasket limitation—“a weathertight gasket mounted on said flange and engaging said lid in its closed position.” We therefore affirm the district court’s summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.<br /></blockquote></span></span>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-62956795647928007542009-04-06T19:27:00.003-04:002009-04-06T19:33:48.083-04:00Experimental Use Explained<div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></span><div><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span><a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1332.pdf">In Clock Spring, L.P. v. Wrapmaster, Inc. (March 25, 2009), </a>the Federal Circuit held that Clock Spring's 1989 demonstration was an experimental use and not a prior public use: </div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></span><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><p align="justify"></p></span><blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"><p align="justify">The experimental use exception is not a doctrine separate or apart from the public use bar. <u>EZ Dock, Inc. v. Schafer Sys. Inc.</u>, 276 F.3d 1347, 1351-52 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Rather, something that would otherwise be a public use may not be invalidating if it qualifies as an experimental use. <u>Electromotive Div. of Gen. Motors Corp. v. Transp. Sys. Div. of Gen. Elec. Co.</u>, 417 F.3d 1203, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (limiting "experimentation sufficient to negate a pre-critical date public use or commercial sale to cases where the testing was performed to perfect claimed features, or . . . to perfect features inherent to the claimed invention"). In <u>Allen Engineering Corp. v. Bartell Industries, Inc.</u>, we catalogued a set of factors that in previous cases had been found instructive, and in some cases dispositive, for determining commercial versus experimental uses. 299 F.3d 1336, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002). These factors include: </p> <dir> <dir> <p align="justify">(1) the necessity for public testing, (2) the amount of control over the experiment retained by the inventor, (3) the nature of the invention, (4) the length of the test period, (5) whether payment was made, (6) whether there was a secrecy obligation, (7) whether records of the experiment were kept, (8) who conducted the experiment, (9) the degree of commercial exploitation during testing, (10) whether the invention reasonably requires evaluation under actual conditions of use, (11) whether testing was systematically performed, (12) whether the inventor continually monitored the invention during testing, and (13) the nature of contacts made with potential customers. </p></dir></dir><u> </u><p align="justify"><u>Id. </u>(quotation and alteration marks omitted). Though a prior commercial sale and not a prior public use was at issue in <u>Allen Engineering</u>, the factors explicated are equally relevant to an analysis of experimental use. </p> <p align="justify">We have said that lack of control over the invention during the alleged experiment, while not always dispositive, may be so. <u>Atlanta Attachment Co. v. Leggett<span style="font-size:100%;"> &amp; Platt, Inc.</span></u><span style="font-size:100%;">, 516 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In that case, we held that a public use had occurred, finding "dispositive" the fact that the patentee "did not have control over the alleged testing," which was performed by its customer. <u>Id. </u>Clock Spring argues that Fawley, a named inventor, exercised tight control over the demonstration, as shown through the detailed reports made of the demonstration. But, the detailed reports do not provide evidence that Fawley controlled the demonstration. An independent observer "analyzed and recorded" the 1989 demonstration. Three of the eleven Clock Spring installations were done by the pipeline’s personnel. None of these individuals was under Fawley’s control or surveillance. We need not, however, rely on lack of control as establishing public use because we conclude that the use cannot qualify as experimental for other reasons. </span></p></span><u><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></u> <p align="justify"><span style="font-size:100%;">A use may be experimental only if it is designed to (1) test claimed features of the invention or (2) to determine whether an invention will work for its intended purpose—itself a requirement of patentability. <u>See In re Omeprazole Patent Litig.</u>, 536 F.3d 1361, 1373-75 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In other words, an invention may not be ready for patenting if claimed features or overall workability are being tested. But, there is no experimental use unless claimed features or overall workability are being tested for purposes of the filing of a patent application.</span><span style="font-size:78%;">8 </span><u><span style="font-size:100%;">See EZ Dock</span></u><span style="font-size:100%;">, 276 F.3d at 1352, 1354; <u>Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark, Inc.</u>, 163 F.3d 1326, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (stating</span> that the public use provision strives to provide "inventors with a definite standard for determining when a patent application must be filed" (quotation marks omitted)). Indeed, the experimental use negation of the § 102(b) bar only exists to allow an inventor to perfect his discovery through testing without losing his right to obtain a patent for his invention. <u>See EZ Dock</u></p><span style="font-size:100%;"> <p align="justify">Clock Spring does not urge that refining the claim limitations was the subject of the 1989 demonstration. Rather, Clock Spring argues that the demonstration was experimental because the 1989 demonstration was designed to determine durability of the method, i.e., its suitability for the intended purpose. <u>See City of Elizabeth v. Am. Nicholson Pavement Co.</u>, 97 U.S. 126, 136 (1877). The reports make no such explicit statement. The NCF report states that "[t]he purpose of this demonstration . . . was to demonstrate to Panhandle Eastern attendants and guests the steps of application and the ability of minimally-trained crews to make Clock Spring installations." J.A. 2447. The 1994 GRI report states that "[t]his demonstration was designed to familiarize pipeline personnel with the Clock Spring technology, and to begin training of maintenance personnel in the use of the coil pass installation <u>method</u>." J.A. 1441 (emphasis added). The demonstration was similarly described to the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") during prosecution, where the applicant stated that the purpose of the demonstration was to seek "input from people in the industry on the performance of the bands and the practicality of their installation techniques." J.A. 2452. </p> <p align="justify">To be sure, the 1994 GRI report can be read as suggesting that the 1989 demonstration was for durability testing because it states that "recovery and analysis of <span style="font-size:100%;">installed composite after several years of exposure in pipeline settings was the only means of verifying the long-term performance of [the clock spring’s] composites in moist soils." J.A. 1441. Clock Spring’s problem, however, is that no report in the record states, or in any way suggests, that the 1989 demonstration was designed to test durability for the purposes of the patent application to the PTO. In fact, the reports make clear that the durability testing was for "acceptance by regulators and the pipeline industry," J.A. 1444,</span><span style="font-size:78%;"> </span><span style="font-size:100%;">and that the 1989 installation was not dug up and examined until almost a year after the 1992 patent application. Thus, even if durability were being tested, it was not for purposes of the patent application, and cannot bring the experimental use exception into play. By filing the 1992 application, the inventors represented that the invention was then ready for patenting, and studies done thereafter cannot justify an earlier delay in filing the application under the rubric of experimental use. </span></p></span><span style="font-size:100%;"></span> <p align="justify"><span style="font-size:100%;">Finally, Clock Spring asserts that because the Department of Transportation did not grant any installation waivers until 1993, the 1989 demonstration must have been experimental. This terse argument is unsupported by any citation to law. That the inventors were not legally allowed to perform the method on a pipeline in commercial operation, does not mean that a public use did not occur. The former fact has absolutely nothing to do with the latter question. </span></p> <p align="justify"><span style="font-size:100%;">In summary, during the 1989 demonstration, all elements of the repair method in claim 1 of the ’307 Patent were performed. There was no evidence that the overall </span><span style="font-size:100%;">suitability of the ’307 Patent’s method nor any of the claim elements was being tested as would be required for experimental use. Accordingly, claim 1 of the ’307 Patent is invalid due to prior public use. </span></p></blockquote><p align="justify"><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></p></span></div></div>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-71378999545299132422009-01-12T17:04:00.001-05:002009-01-12T17:04:10.739-05:00Pre-1923 Publication Not in Copyright Public Domain<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><span class="864505820-15122008"><font size="+0"> </font><div><span class="864505820-15122008"><font size="+0">In </font></span><font size="+0"><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/467F8D7B1F1FEE628825751A00516F9C/$file/07-15582.pdf?openelement"><em>Societe Civile Succession Richard Guino v. Renoir</em></a>,&nbsp;<span class="864505820-15122008"><font face="Arial" size="2">(9th Cir., December 2008),&nbsp;the court held that works first published in France no later than 1917 without a U.S.-style copyright notice&nbsp;were never subject to U.S. copyright under the 1909 Copyright Act, and therefore could not have fallen into the public domain in the U.S.&nbsp; </font></span></font></div></span><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><font size="+0"> </font><div><span class="864505820-15122008"><font size="+0"><font face="Arial" size="2"></font></font></span><font size="+0">&nbsp;</font></div><font size="+0"> </font><div><span class="864505820-15122008"></span><font size="+0"><font face="Arial"><font size="2"><span class="864505820-15122008">T</span>his holding is particularly interesting because, as the Ninth Circuit noted, "[t]he year 1923 is significant because the 1976 Act . . . and the 1998 Copyright Extension Act operate together to create a bright line rule for which works are now in the public domain:&nbsp; works published before January 1, 1923 are generally in the public domain."&nbsp; This rule is even noted in </font></font><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.html"><font face="Arial" size="2">Copyright Office Circular 22</font></a><font face="Arial"><font size="2">&nbsp;<span class="864505820-15122008">which states</span></font></font></font></div><font size="+0"> </font><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><font size="+0"> </font><div><font size="+0"><font face="Arial"><font size="2"><span class="864505820-15122008">. . . the U.S. copyright in any work published or copyrighted prior to January 1, 1923, has expired by operation of law, and the work has permanently fallen into the public domain in the United States. For example, on January 1, 1997, copyrights in works first published or copyrighted before January 1, 1922, have expired; on January 1, 1998, copyrights in works first published or copyrighted before January 1, 1923, have expired. Unless the copyright law is changed again, no works under protection on January 1, 1999, will fall into the public domain in the United States until January 1, 2019.</span>&nbsp;</font></font></font></div></blockquote><font size="+0"> </font><div><font size="+0"><font face="Arial" size="2">The works at issue<span class="864505820-15122008"> were</span> sculptures by the famed artist </font><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Auguste_Renoir"><font face="Arial" size="2">Renior</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2"> and&nbsp;one of his assistants </font><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Guino"><font face="Arial" size="2">Richard Guino</font></a><span class="864505820-15122008"></span><font face="Arial" size="2">.<span class="864505820-15122008">&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></font></font></div><font size="+0"></font> <br><br>--<br> Posted By Bill Heinze to <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://ip-updates.blogspot.com/2009/01/pre-1923-publication-not-in-copyright.html">I/P Updates</a> at 1/12/2009 04:21:00 PM</div></div></div>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-57186022099490533392009-01-12T16:21:00.001-05:002009-01-12T16:21:19.730-05:00Pre-1923 Publication not in Copyright Public Domain<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=864505820-15122008><FONT size=+0> <DIV><SPAN class=864505820-15122008>In </SPAN><A href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/467F8D7B1F1FEE628825751A00516F9C/$file/07-15582.pdf?openelement"><EM>Societe Civile Succession Richard Guino v. Renoir</EM></A>,&nbsp;<SPAN class=864505820-15122008><FONT face=Arial size=2>(9th Cir., December 2008),&nbsp;the court held that works first published in France no later than 1917 without a U.S.-style copyright notice&nbsp;were never subject to U.S. copyright under the 1909 Copyright Act, and therefore could not have fallen into the public domain in the U.S.&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=864505820-15122008><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=864505820-15122008></SPAN><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=864505820-15122008>T</SPAN>his holding is particularly interesting because, as the Ninth Circuit noted, "[t]he year 1923 is significant because the 1976 Act . . . and the 1998 Copyright Extension Act operate together to create a bright line rule for which works are now in the public domain:&nbsp; works published before January 1, 1923 are generally in the public domain."&nbsp; This rule is even noted in </FONT></FONT><A href="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.html"><FONT face=Arial size=2>Copyright Office Circular 22</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>&nbsp;<SPAN class=864505820-15122008>which states</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=864505820-15122008>. . . the U.S. copyright in any work published or copyrighted prior to January 1, 1923, has expired by operation of law, and the work has permanently fallen into the public domain in the United States. For example, on January 1, 1997, copyrights in works first published or copyrighted before January 1, 1922, have expired; on January 1, 1998, copyrights in works first published or copyrighted before January 1, 1923, have expired. Unless the copyright law is changed again, no works under protection on January 1, 1999, will fall into the public domain in the United States until January 1, 2019.</SPAN>&nbsp;</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The works at issue<SPAN class=864505820-15122008> were</SPAN> sculptures by the famed artist </FONT><A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Auguste_Renoir"><FONT face=Arial size=2>Renior</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2> and&nbsp;one of his assistants </FONT><A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Guino"><FONT face=Arial size=2>Richard Guino</FONT></A><SPAN class=864505820-15122008></SPAN><FONT face=Arial size=2>.<SPAN class=864505820-15122008>&nbsp;&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV></FONT></SPAN>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097730.post-22866278984084971222008-12-10T10:08:00.001-05:002008-12-10T10:08:55.144-05:00(CAFC/NJIP) Model Patent Jury Instructions Published for Comment<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=170353614-10122008><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=174270415-10122008><FONT color=#0000ff>&nbsp;</FONT><FONT color=#000000>F</FONT></SPAN>rom the IPO Daily News, </FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Last Friday the National Jury Instruction Project released <A href="http://ipo.informz.net/z/cjUucD9taT00MTgyMzMmcD0xJnU9NzUxNzU1OTA5JmxpPTE0MjY3NDI/index.html" target=_blank rel=nofollow><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">model patent jury instructions</SPAN></A><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">&nbsp;that were prepared by an informal committee assembled by Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel.&nbsp; The model instructions are open for comment until <SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1228919756_3 style="CURSOR: hand; BORDER-BOTTOM: #0066cc 1px dashed">February 1, 2009</SPAN>.&nbsp; They will be reviewed by IPO&#8217;s Litigation Committee (Chair: JOE KIRINCICH, Pitney Bowes Inc.; Vice Chairs: BETTY MORGAN, Cantor Colburn, LLP, and SCOTT PIVNICK, Pillsbury <SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1228919756_4 style="CURSOR: hand; BORDER-BOTTOM: #0066cc 1px dashed">Winthrop</SPAN> Shaw Pittman, LLP).&nbsp; It is understood that the model instructions will not be endorsed by the Federal Circuit and will remain unofficial.</SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma"><SPAN class=170353614-10122008><FONT face=Arial>It's not quite clear&nbsp;why Circuit Judge Michel thought we needed yet another set<SPAN class=174270415-10122008>&nbsp;of model jury instructions</SPAN>, or why th<SPAN class=174270415-10122008>e</SPAN>&nbsp;<SPAN class=174270415-10122008>NJIP</SPAN> felt that they needed to use his name<SPAN class=174270415-10122008>&nbsp;when the result would not be endorsed by the Federal Circuit</SPAN>.&nbsp; According to the Introduction,</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma"><SPAN class=170353614-10122008> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial>Chief Judge Paul R. Michel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit<SPAN class=170353614-10122008> </SPAN>requested the members of this National Patent Jury Instruction Project to develop a set of model<SPAN class=170353614-10122008> </SPAN>jury instructions for patent infringement cases. The goal was to create a committee, national in<SPAN class=170353614-10122008> </SPAN>scope, with members from both the bench and bar. The underlying idea was to benefit from the<SPAN class=170353614-10122008> </SPAN>collective experience of both judges and attorneys who are interested in creating an easier to<SPAN class=170353614-10122008> </SPAN>understand and streamlined set of model jury instructions.<SPAN class=170353614-10122008> </SPAN>The following instructions are the result of the project. These instructions will not be<SPAN class=170353614-10122008> </SPAN>endorsed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and are not intended to be "official" jury<SPAN class=170353614-10122008> </SPAN>instructions. Nor is any particular member of this Committee endorsing any particular<SPAN class=170353614-10122008> </SPAN>instruction. These instructions are intended to be helpful models for judges and lawyers. In<SPAN class=170353614-10122008> </SPAN>devising this set of instructions, we have looked to and drawn from the work of others, including<SPAN class=170353614-10122008> </SPAN>the committees for the Northern District of California, The Federal Circuit Bar Association, the<SPAN class=170353614-10122008> </SPAN>AIPLA, and the District of Delaware. Judges and lawyers who use these instructions will need<SPAN class=170353614-10122008> </SPAN>to supplement them with instructions that speak generally to the trial and the jury&#8217;s duties, such<SPAN class=170353614-10122008> </SPAN>as the nature of the evidence and the duty to deliberate, and will have to tailor them to the facts<SPAN class=170353614-10122008> </SPAN>and issues in the particular case.</FONT></P></SPAN></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Bill Heinzenoreply@blogger.com3